Appeal in Kerala High Court challenges refusal to include transgender candidates in National Cadet Corps

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court recently issued notice on plea for the inclusion of transgender candidates in the National Cadet Corps (NCC) [Janvin Cleetus v Union of India & ors].

The appeal was moved by a transman, who has challenged a single-judge Bench ruling from November 2025 which held that transgender candidates are not entitled to enroll with the NCC under the existing National Cadet Corps Act, 1948.

The single-judge Bench had reasoned that the NCC Act, in its current version, only permitted the enrolment of 'male' and 'female' candidates, leaving no statutory provision for the entry of transgender candidates.

The single judge had added that while transgender persons should ideally be given the opportunity to join the NCC, legislative and executive action was required before such candidates could be allowed to join the NCC. 

The single-judge Bench, therefore, dismissed a transman's plea to allow his enrollment with the NCC. This verdict has now been challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court.

The Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishnan Kumar, on April 6 sought the response of the Union government and the State government and the NCC authorities to the appeal.

The case is listed next on May 26.

The appellant in the case is Janvin Cleetus, a transgender person identifying as male. Cleetus had applied for enrolment in the 30(K) Battalion NCC, Calicut group.

He successfully cleared the initial stages of the selection process, including physical and academic requirements. However, his application was rejected at the interview stage after his gender identity became known to the authorities.

Challenging this rejection, Cleetus approached the Kerala High Court, contending that the denial of his application, solely based on gender identity, violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition against discrimination), 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.

He added that the authorities had failed to consider that he was legally recognised as a male and that he ought to have been considered in the male category.

However, a single-judge Bench comprising Justice N Nagaresh upheld the NCC's rejection on the ground that the existing framework did not contain any provision to include transgender candidates in the NCC.

Aggrieved, Cleetus has now filed an appeal, arguing that the single judge adopted a narrow interpretation of the NCC Act and failed to apply the binding constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court in NALSA v Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438].

"The absence of an express provision for transgender persons cannot be used as a ground to deny fundamental rights. The reasoning based on administrative convenience, safety concerns, and lack of infrastructure is legally untenable, as such considerations cannot override constitutional guarantees. The State is under a positive obligation to ensure inclusion and provide reasonable accommodation to marginalized groups," the appeal states.

He has, therefore, urged the Division Bench of the Court to set aside the singe judge's ruling and order the NCC authorities consider his application for enrolment in the NCC without discriminating him on the basis of his gender identity.

The appeal was moved through advocate Dhanuja MS.